Skip to main content

Active Readers

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Structure of Scientific Examination Questions

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Education ((BRIEFSEDUCAT))

  • 661 Accesses

Abstract

Even simple texts can require active interpretation. Gaps in logical sequences will force the reader to make presumptions about the meanings of the text or the intentions of its author. These gaps are called semantic discontinuities. In scientific writing, semantic discontinuities occur so frequently that they might be regarded as standard practice. The ability to make the required assumptions, through the narrative of a scientific text, could be thought of as a necessary skill; one that must be learned by students as they become proficient in their discipline. Of course, examination questions demand answers and these answers are scientific texts in their own right. Very often, the nature of the question will force the candidate to include semantic discontinuities within their answers. Such demands often lie beyond the capability of the candidate. In these cases, a candidate who understands the science behind a question may fail because they are unable to formulate an acceptable answer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, B. W. (1942). Gem testing. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eco, U. (1992). Interpretation and overinterpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations; regrammaticising experience. As Technical Knowledge. In Martin,J. R. & Veel, R. (Eds.), Reading science; critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, G. (1986). Chemistry counts. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning; The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. Continuum: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellgren, K. (2010). New science GCSE.s ‘not tough enough’ says watchdog. In BBC News, Education and family. 16th June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweiry, E., Crisp, V., Ahmed, A., & Pollitt, A. (2002). Tales of the expected: The influence of students’ expectations on exam validity. Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, UK.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Day .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Day, A. (2014). Active Readers. In: The Structure of Scientific Examination Questions. SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7488-9_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics